How Your Duty to Retreat From a Threat Can Limit Your Self-Defense Rights
How Your Duty to Retreat From a Threat Can Limit Your Self-Defense RightsBy Peter Hobart |
|
This article was originally titled "A Duty to Retreat" and was published as the Way of the Warrior column in the February 2004 issue of Black Belt. Under those relatively straightforward circumstances, police and prosecutors decided it would be inappropriate to file charges against the blind man, and the estate of the deceased didn’t pursue the matter in civil court. To assume that this result will always be the case in self-defense situations, however, would be to ignore both the gravity of such matters in the eyes of the law and the proliferation of civil suits in our increasingly litigious society. Martial arts history is replete with feats of single combat, challenge matches and duels to the death. In the modern era, such occurrences are rare, yet most practitioners train with at least some understanding that they may one day be called upon to use their skills. Our legal system has an elaborate framework of conventions and rules governing the use of force. Even the slightest nonconsensual touch can result in criminal prosecution and civil liability. Any martial artist who does not have a passing familiarity with general legal principles is negligent, and any instructor who fails to consider those concepts is reckless. The criminal and civil laws governing the use of force in the United States are primarily a matter of state law and, therefore, vary from place to place. However, certain principles of general applicability are part of the statutes and case law of many jurisdictions, including the duty to retreat. It holds that prior to using deadly force in self-defense, you may be required to retreat to the wall if it’s safe to do so. As is so often the case, that rule begs several questions: What constitutes “deadly force”? How far is “to the wall”? When is it safe to retreat? While these questions have no clear answers, they must be asked by anyone who anticipates the possibility of using such force, and they should be addressed before the need to do so arises. The legal definition of deadly force is deliberately vague. It’s meant to embrace a variety of scenarios in which death could or does occur. At the extreme end of the spectrum lies the use of firearms and other weapons designed to inflict injury. They are the easy cases. Courts have also held that knives, baseball bats and even automobiles can be used as deadly weapons. To put matters in perspective, in 1993 the Tennessee Criminal Appeals Court held that a sock used to choke a victim to unconsciousness was a deadly weapon. Several courts have also recognized that both training implements and bare hands can be considered deadly weapons depending on the way in which they’re employed. In short, any object that can cause death can be considered a deadly weapon. “Retreat to the wall” does not simply mean backing up when you’re confronted. The term is generally construed to denote taking any reasonable and apparent avenue of exit, including entering or leaving a building or even driving away from the scene. It would certainly include swallowing your pride and refusing to be baited into potentially lethal combat. An additional factor to be considered is whether such retreat is safe. If you’re being held captive, for example, retreat may be impossible or more dangerous than direct confrontation. Most retreat jurisdictions recognize exceptions to this duty in your own home or when you’re the victim of violent crime. Pennsylvania is a retreat jurisdiction. In 1996 its Superior Court found that: “Although a person is afforded discretion in determining necessity, level and manner of force to defend one’s self, the right to use force in self-defense is a qualified, not an absolute, right.” To those entrusted with the dangerous and potentially deadly arts of self-defense falls the responsibility of employing their abilities in a lawful and moral fashion. To do otherwise invites severe legal consequences. What’s more, it casts disrepute on the venerated and honorable lineage of the martial arts. About the author: Peter Hobart has trained in the martial arts for 20 years and has taught use-of-force issues to civilians and law-enforcement professionals. To contact him, send e-mail to kishido@comcast.net.
The Law & Martial Arts Vol.5 (DVD 7269)The Law & Martial Arts Vol.4 (DVD 7259) The Law & Martial Arts Vol.3 (DVD 7249) The Law & Martial Arts Vol.2 (DVD 7239) The Law & Martial Arts Vol.1 (DVD 7229) |
